In software development, merge conflicts occur when two people modify the same code in incompatible ways. Git can't automatically reconcile the changes—humans must manually resolve the conflict by choosing which version to keep or finding a way to integrate both.
This requires communication, understanding both parties' intentions, and prioritizing project goals over individual preferences. Good teams resolve conflicts efficiently; poor teams let them fester or split the codebase into incompatible forks.
Christian community faces similar challenges. Believers modify the "shared codebase" of church life in ways that sometimes conflict. Resolution requires wisdom, communication, and commitment to unity—or the community fractures.
The Conflict
Merge conflicts arise from legitimate parallel development. Both developers are working on real problems with good intentions. The conflict isn't because one is wrong—it's because their changes don't automatically combine.
Church conflicts similarly often involve legitimate concerns pursued in incompatible ways. Both sides want good outcomes but propose different approaches. The conflict isn't necessarily about who's right—it's about how to reconcile good but incompatible intentions.
Auto-Merge Limits
Git auto-merges when possible—when changes don't overlap, it combines them automatically. Only incompatible overlapping changes create conflicts requiring manual resolution.
Similarly, many church differences coexist peacefully—different worship styles, various ministry approaches, diverse spiritual gifts. These "auto-merge" without conflict. Only when changes directly conflict—incompatible doctrines, mutually exclusive practices—does manual resolution become necessary.
Manual Resolution
Resolving merge conflicts requires understanding what each side is trying to accomplish. Why did they make this change? What problem were they solving? Can we integrate both approaches or must we choose one?
Church conflict resolution similarly requires understanding underlying concerns. Why does this matter to you? What are you trying to protect or accomplish? Is there a way to honor both concerns or must we choose one approach?
My autistic thinking helps here—I focus on the actual logical problem rather than getting caught in social dynamics or hurt feelings. What's the actual disagreement? Can it be resolved technically, or is it fundamentally incompatible?
Destructive Merge Strategies
Some conflict resolution strategies are destructive:
- "Accept mine" (ignoring others' changes entirely)
- "Accept theirs" (surrendering your perspective completely)
- "Delete both" (avoiding the issue by removing functionality)
Churches sometimes use similarly destructive approaches:
- Authoritarianism (leadership imposes their view without listening)
- Capitulation (giving in to avoid conflict regardless of truth)
- Avoidance (ignoring the issue hoping it resolves itself)
Better resolution requires actually addressing the conflict, understanding both sides, and finding genuinely integrated solutions.
Testing After Merge
After resolving conflicts, you test—does the code still work? Did the resolution break anything? Are both original intentions still served?
After resolving church conflicts, we evaluate—does this honor Scripture? Does it serve the community? Are both parties' legitimate concerns addressed?
When to Fork
Sometimes conflicts are irreconcilable. The two visions are fundamentally incompatible. At that point, forking might be necessary—creating separate projects that develop independently.
Church history includes necessary separations—when doctrinal differences are fundamental, when visions for ministry are incompatible, when unity would require compromising truth. Not every schism is tragic; some preserve integrity that unity would sacrifice.
But forking should be last resort, not first impulse. Invest in resolution before concluding separation is necessary.
American Individualism
American culture defaults to forking—if we disagree, we split. Churches divide over worship styles, political preferences, personality conflicts. The threshold for "irreconcilable conflict" is very low.
But Git best practices encourage minimal forking—it creates maintenance burden, duplicates effort, fragments community. Similarly, church unity should be prioritized. Not unity at any cost (truth matters), but genuine effort to resolve rather than split.
Communication Protocols
Good teams establish communication protocols before conflicts arise—how we'll handle disagreements, what authority resolves disputes, what values guide resolution.
Churches similarly need established processes—polity structures, doctrinal standards, resolution procedures. These don't prevent all conflicts but provide frameworks for addressing them.
Blame and History
Git's "blame" feature shows who made which changes and when. This helps understand the history behind current state but can be misused to shame contributors.
In conflict resolution, understanding history matters—how did we get here? What led to these positions? But the goal is insight, not blame. We're not trying to shame people for their contributions—we're trying to understand context so we can resolve wisely.
Conclusion
Merge conflicts are normal in collaborative development. They don't mean the project is failing—they mean multiple people are contributing actively. Resolution requires understanding both sides, prioritizing project goals, and finding integrated solutions.
Church conflicts are similarly normal in Christian community. They don't necessarily mean the church is failing—they might mean people care deeply about the community's direction. Resolution requires understanding concerns, prioritizing kingdom values, and finding solutions that honor truth while preserving unity.
My autistic logical focus helps me see conflicts as technical problems requiring resolution rather than interpersonal battles requiring victory. What's the actual incompatibility? Can we resolve it technically? Is separation truly necessary or can we find integrated solution?
Not every conflict can be resolved. Sometimes forking is necessary—truth matters more than unity. But many conflicts that lead to church splits could be resolved with better communication, humbler listening, and genuine commitment to finding integrated solutions.
Like good software teams: prioritize collaboration, communicate clearly, resolve conflicts constructively, fork only when absolutely necessary. The goal is working code that serves its purpose—or in church terms, unified community that honors Christ and accomplishes His mission.